Soo regarding Sieges/Wars...

ArchivedUser

Here is my opinion on wars/caravans.

1.       Wars are fought for multiple reasons in real life and in games. So the REASON for war should be important. There should be a IN-GAME mechanic that allows the leaders of the warring factions to determine how they want to engage in their war efforts and conquests.

a.       Example if it’s a war of resources (between a node that is below metro (highest lvl node)) then taking over territory (converting) should be the goal of the nodes fighting. This doesn’t have a direct consequence for the items of your storage or town/city but does affect the macro economics of the node and the guilds/coalitions that run/own those areas.

b.       A war between lvl 5 (or 6) wars can either be resources (which again goes back to the above stated point) or about complete domination. Dominations should be harder (need to actually D-ELEVEL the node!) but the leaders should have the option on what to do with the citizens. They can either absorb a huge portion of the available resources in banks/taverns ect.. to help replenish their coffers or even make a profit. Or they can choose to ignore those items and simply choose to rule through a puppet route (the city pays a tax to the winning node from then on and all “benefits” to the city (like getting points to create more public use places (marketplace, fast travel, ect…) this would be a solid incentive to not fucking the people but the government, and imagine a military node all of a sudden getting the benefit of a marketplace (but to a lesser degree) from their conquered military metro.

c.       This would also create high fluxes of caravans which could be focued by the enemy city or even rogue individuals/companies. Caravans are an important function in AoC this would just increase their importance. Are you a rich asshole who has a lot of shit that you don’t want getting fucked on the off chance. Well then move your shit to another node (city/town). You get hit with a huge tax for abandoning the city of your citizenship but maybe it’s still a huge profit for you to do so. So pay off the highest lvl defenders and have them take your stuff.

d.       (Regarding carvan system, there should be a half/half system in place. Half the money up front half the money at the end of a successful trip this would be a mechanic in the game and not rely on the players, but the amount of course would be up to the players. Also a ranking system for companies/guilds/individuals for defending caravans would be great with the number of trips/success/failures/sepeclizations(maybe their a great counter rogue)/ect…) listed in the city so that people can pay higher prices for better defenders (if it’s my job and I’m good at it best believe I want to be compensated for the time spent). 

Thoughts?

(this was discussed w/ my guildies and AoC Discord)

ArchivedUser

Guildart said:

Here is my opinion on wars/caravans.

1.       Wars are fought for multiple reasons in real life and in games. So the REASON for war should be important. There should be a IN-GAME mechanic that allows the leaders of the warring factions to determine how they want to engage in their war efforts and conquests.

a.       Example if it’s a war of resources (between a node that is below metro (highest lvl node)) then taking over territory (converting) should be the goal of the nodes fighting. This doesn’t have a direct consequence for the items of your storage or town/city but does affect the macro economics of the node and the guilds/coalitions that run/own those areas.

b.       A war between lvl 5 (or 6) wars can either be resources (which again goes back to the above stated point) or about complete domination. Dominations should be harder (need to actually D-ELEVEL the node!) but the leaders should have the option on what to do with the citizens. They can either absorb a huge portion of the available resources in banks/taverns ect.. to help replenish their coffers or even make a profit. Or they can choose to ignore those items and simply choose to rule through a puppet route (the city pays a tax to the winning node from then on and all “benefits” to the city (like getting points to create more public use places (marketplace, fast travel, ect…) this would be a solid incentive to not fucking the people but the government, and imagine a military node all of a sudden getting the benefit of a marketplace (but to a lesser degree) from their conquered military metro.

c.       This would also create high fluxes of caravans which could be focued by the enemy city or even rogue individuals/companies. Caravans are an important function in AoC this would just increase their importance. Are you a rich asshole who has a lot of shit that you don’t want getting fucked on the off chance. Well then move your shit to another node (city/town). You get hit with a huge tax for abandoning the city of your citizenship but maybe it’s still a huge profit for you to do so. So pay off the highest lvl defenders and have them take your stuff.

d.       (Regarding carvan system, there should be a half/half system in place. Half the money up front half the money at the end of a successful trip this would be a mechanic in the game and not rely on the players, but the amount of course would be up to the players. Also a ranking system for companies/guilds/individuals for defending caravans would be great with the number of trips/success/failures/sepeclizations(maybe their a great counter rogue)/ect…) listed in the city so that people can pay higher prices for better defenders (if it’s my job and I’m good at it best believe I want to be compensated for the time spent). 

Thoughts?

(this was discussed w/ my guildies and AoC Discord)

Regarding node conflicts, there really is no "leader" or "factions". Everyone attacking or defending may be doing so for their own reasons. 

• Each node type provides some global benefits to the ZOI. Citizens from surrounding nodes may defend a neighboring nodes in the interests of the wider ZOI. 
  
  
• Players anywhere on the map may attack a node to delevel it so that content can be opened up in surrounding nodes.
  
  
• Players may also wish to attack a node because there are two many nodes of that type in the ZOI. 
  
  
• Groups or guilds may attack or defend a node to swing the balance of power in the conflict to diminish the resources of enemy guilds or groups who are on the opposing side.
  

TL;DR the reasons for node conflict in Ashes will be complex and full of political intrigue. The enormous cost of resources and time to attack or defend nodes will make it necessary to obfuscate your true motivations until the last moment when you are primed and ready to make a power move.

ArchivedUser

lexmax said:

Guildart said:

Here is my opinion on wars/caravans.

1.       Wars are fought for multiple reasons in real life and in games. So the REASON for war should be important. There should be a IN-GAME mechanic that allows the leaders of the warring factions to determine how they want to engage in their war efforts and conquests.

a.       Example if it’s a war of resources (between a node that is below metro (highest lvl node)) then taking over territory (converting) should be the goal of the nodes fighting. This doesn’t have a direct consequence for the items of your storage or town/city but does affect the macro economics of the node and the guilds/coalitions that run/own those areas.

b.       A war between lvl 5 (or 6) wars can either be resources (which again goes back to the above stated point) or about complete domination. Dominations should be harder (need to actually D-ELEVEL the node!) but the leaders should have the option on what to do with the citizens. They can either absorb a huge portion of the available resources in banks/taverns ect.. to help replenish their coffers or even make a profit. Or they can choose to ignore those items and simply choose to rule through a puppet route (the city pays a tax to the winning node from then on and all “benefits” to the city (like getting points to create more public use places (marketplace, fast travel, ect…) this would be a solid incentive to not fucking the people but the government, and imagine a military node all of a sudden getting the benefit of a marketplace (but to a lesser degree) from their conquered military metro.

c.       This would also create high fluxes of caravans which could be focued by the enemy city or even rogue individuals/companies. Caravans are an important function in AoC this would just increase their importance. Are you a rich asshole who has a lot of shit that you don’t want getting fucked on the off chance. Well then move your shit to another node (city/town). You get hit with a huge tax for abandoning the city of your citizenship but maybe it’s still a huge profit for you to do so. So pay off the highest lvl defenders and have them take your stuff.

d.       (Regarding carvan system, there should be a half/half system in place. Half the money up front half the money at the end of a successful trip this would be a mechanic in the game and not rely on the players, but the amount of course would be up to the players. Also a ranking system for companies/guilds/individuals for defending caravans would be great with the number of trips/success/failures/sepeclizations(maybe their a great counter rogue)/ect…) listed in the city so that people can pay higher prices for better defenders (if it’s my job and I’m good at it best believe I want to be compensated for the time spent). 

Thoughts?

(this was discussed w/ my guildies and AoC Discord)

Regarding node conflicts, there really is no "leader" or "factions". Everyone attacking or defending may be doing so for their own reasons. 

• Each node type provides some global benefits to the ZOI. Citizens from surrounding nodes may defend a neighboring nodes in the interests of the wider ZOI. 
  
  
• Players anywhere on the map may attack a node to delevel it so that content can be opened up in surrounding nodes.
  
  
• Players may also wish to attack a node because there are two many nodes of that type in the ZOI. 
  
  
• Groups or guilds may attack or defend a node to swing the balance of power in the conflict to diminish the resources of enemy guilds or groups who are on the opposing side.
  

TL;DR the reasons for node conflict in Ashes will be complex and full of political intrigue. The enormous cost of resources and time to attack or defend nodes will make it necessary to obfuscate your true motivations until the last moment when you are primed and ready to make a power move.

First, sup Lex

Secondly your first point makes sense, and is an interesting mechanic that will be fun to see in action. Next what do you mean by "content" may be opened up in surrounding nodes. Also how does "to many nodes" in a particular ZOI have any detrimental affect? Third point I don't disagree at all. 

What i'm stating (or trying to convey) is that I think there should be in-depth mechanics for how a alliance/guild/ect.. excutes a siege/war against another node/city. Currently it seems that there is only one "type" of war and that is a war of complete desctruction. What i'm trying to introduce is the idea of wars being fought for control (puppet) of a city instead. The more types of way a allicance/guild/ect.. can go about owning/controlling a region the more in-depth and varied the games political and social landscape would be. 

Maybe you don't want to pay the truly enormous cost of completely annihilating an enemy but rather just want control of their node and ZOI instead you can make them a puppet which they would then pay tribute, and you don't incur as heavy a cost of war. 

(Also ranking system for caravan defenders/attackers would be great!)

ArchivedUser

Guildart said:

lexmax said:

Guildart said:

Here is my opinion on wars/caravans.

1.       Wars are fought for multiple reasons in real life and in games. So the REASON for war should be important. There should be a IN-GAME mechanic that allows the leaders of the warring factions to determine how they want to engage in their war efforts and conquests.

a.       Example if it’s a war of resources (between a node that is below metro (highest lvl node)) then taking over territory (converting) should be the goal of the nodes fighting. This doesn’t have a direct consequence for the items of your storage or town/city but does affect the macro economics of the node and the guilds/coalitions that run/own those areas.

b.       A war between lvl 5 (or 6) wars can either be resources (which again goes back to the above stated point) or about complete domination. Dominations should be harder (need to actually D-ELEVEL the node!) but the leaders should have the option on what to do with the citizens. They can either absorb a huge portion of the available resources in banks/taverns ect.. to help replenish their coffers or even make a profit. Or they can choose to ignore those items and simply choose to rule through a puppet route (the city pays a tax to the winning node from then on and all “benefits” to the city (like getting points to create more public use places (marketplace, fast travel, ect…) this would be a solid incentive to not fucking the people but the government, and imagine a military node all of a sudden getting the benefit of a marketplace (but to a lesser degree) from their conquered military metro.

c.       This would also create high fluxes of caravans which could be focued by the enemy city or even rogue individuals/companies. Caravans are an important function in AoC this would just increase their importance. Are you a rich asshole who has a lot of shit that you don’t want getting fucked on the off chance. Well then move your shit to another node (city/town). You get hit with a huge tax for abandoning the city of your citizenship but maybe it’s still a huge profit for you to do so. So pay off the highest lvl defenders and have them take your stuff.

d.       (Regarding carvan system, there should be a half/half system in place. Half the money up front half the money at the end of a successful trip this would be a mechanic in the game and not rely on the players, but the amount of course would be up to the players. Also a ranking system for companies/guilds/individuals for defending caravans would be great with the number of trips/success/failures/sepeclizations(maybe their a great counter rogue)/ect…) listed in the city so that people can pay higher prices for better defenders (if it’s my job and I’m good at it best believe I want to be compensated for the time spent). 

Thoughts?

(this was discussed w/ my guildies and AoC Discord)

Regarding node conflicts, there really is no "leader" or "factions". Everyone attacking or defending may be doing so for their own reasons. 

• Each node type provides some global benefits to the ZOI. Citizens from surrounding nodes may defend a neighboring nodes in the interests of the wider ZOI. 
  
  
• Players anywhere on the map may attack a node to delevel it so that content can be opened up in surrounding nodes.
  
  
• Players may also wish to attack a node because there are two many nodes of that type in the ZOI. 
  
  
• Groups or guilds may attack or defend a node to swing the balance of power in the conflict to diminish the resources of enemy guilds or groups who are on the opposing side.
  

TL;DR the reasons for node conflict in Ashes will be complex and full of political intrigue. The enormous cost of resources and time to attack or defend nodes will make it necessary to obfuscate your true motivations until the last moment when you are primed and ready to make a power move.

First, sup Lex

waves

Secondly your first point makes sense, and is an interesting mechanic that will be fun to see in action. Next what do you mean by "content" may be opened up in surrounding nodes. 

Nodes contain unique content such as dungeons, raids and events that open up at certain stages of node development. More developed nodes lock out less developed nodes surrounding them, preventing access to the content locked behind these nodes. The only way to gain access to these raids/dungeons etc is to delevel the nodes that are locking out the lower stage nodes then allow these nodes to develop. The prizes for doing this will be compelling, such as epic gear, weapons and mounts etc. This will encourage the node system to keep cycling.

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/34405/information-nodes-and-sieges/p1

Also how does "to many nodes" in a particular ZOI have any detrimental affect?

For example, a ZOI needs each type of node for a specific reason. You need economic nodes to enable your trade network, you need religious nodes for the buffs they provide, you need military nodes for attack/defense and bounty hunters, and you need a science metro for it's fast travel network. Say you have too many military nodes or too many science nodes and not enough religious or economic nodes. The citizens of the ZOI as a whole will react to ensure there is balance in the node system by attacking and deleveling the duplicate nodes to allow the needed node types to rise.

Third point I don't disagree at all. What i'm stating (or trying to convey) is that I think there should be in-depth mechanics for how a alliance/guild/ect.. excutes a siege/war against another node/city. Currently it seems that there is only one "type" of war and that is a war of complete desctruction.

Node sieges do not result in complete destruction unless they are against a level 1 node. If successful they only delevel the node by one stage.

What i'm trying to introduce is the idea of wars being fought for control (puppet) of a city instead. 

Node sieges, as Intrepid describe them currently, do not gain the attackers control of the node. The only result of a successful siege is delevelling the node by one stage. Repeated sieges will ultimately destroy a node, but they will need to be done according to the node siege declaration mechanics.

The more types of way a allicance/guild/ect.. can go about owning/controlling a region the more in-depth and varied the games political and social landscape would be. 
Maybe you don't want to pay the truly enormous cost of completely annihilating an enemy but rather just want control of their node and ZOI instead you can make them a puppet which they would then pay tribute, and you don't incur as heavy a cost of war. 

According to Intrepid, there is no concept of "owning" a region or a node. The closest idea to this is being part of a node's government, which is decided by various mechanics within the citizenry of the node. Attackers do not gain governmental control of a node as the result of a siege.

ArchivedUser

@lexmax

Regarding first point. Didn't know that would be the reason to delevel a node (was thinking more socio/economic reason) but that makes senese and keeps things dynamic. 

The second point for some reason I had in my head that 1 Metro (let's say economic) in a region would then have only economic nodes in their ZOI not multiple types of nodes in a ZOI with the metro giving your the ultimate benefit (in this case a networked marketplace). Your break down clears up that point thank you. 

On the last point, I understand they haven't said anything regarding that. I'm stating that it would bring about interesting dynamics to the game if nodes could be "owned". Of course with that being introduced there would need to be a mechanic for allow the nodes to throw off their shackles and fight back their oppressors. 

(Again I WANT RANKINGS (so i can hire the best ).

ArchivedUser

Guildart said:

On the last point, I understand they haven't said anything regarding that. I'm stating that it would bring about interesting dynamics to the game if nodes could be "owned". Of course with that being introduced there would need to be a mechanic for allow the nodes to throw off their shackles and fight back their oppressors. 

I see your point. It would be great concept to have a "civil war" to overthrow the government. 

ArchivedUser

lexmax said:

Guildart said:

On the last point, I understand they haven't said anything regarding that. I'm stating that it would bring about interesting dynamics to the game if nodes could be "owned". Of course with that being introduced there would need to be a mechanic for allow the nodes to throw off their shackles and fight back their oppressors. 

I see your point. It would be great concept to have a "civil war" to overthrow the government. 

Personally, I think the varying methods to "overthrow" the people in power or determine who takes charge next is good enough. Having the most wealth for economic nodes, the strongest fighter for militaristic, etc. I don't remember exactly what they were, but I think it's creative.

ArchivedUser

lexmax said:

Guildart said:

On the last point, I understand they haven't said anything regarding that. I'm stating that it would bring about interesting dynamics to the game if nodes could be "owned". Of course with that being introduced there would need to be a mechanic for allow the nodes to throw off their shackles and fight back their oppressors. 

I see your point. It would be great concept to have a "civil war" to overthrow the government. 

Ok, but I want to be on Captain America's side.

ArchivedUser

Karthos said:

lexmax said:

Guildart said:

On the last point, I understand they haven't said anything regarding that. I'm stating that it would bring about interesting dynamics to the game if nodes could be "owned". Of course with that being introduced there would need to be a mechanic for allow the nodes to throw off their shackles and fight back their oppressors. 

I see your point. It would be great concept to have a "civil war" to overthrow the government. 

Ok, but I want to be on Captain America's side.

You are captain America. 

ArchivedUser

Nocht said:

lexmax said:

Guildart said:

On the last point, I understand they haven't said anything regarding that. I'm stating that it would bring about interesting dynamics to the game if nodes could be "owned". Of course with that being introduced there would need to be a mechanic for allow the nodes to throw off their shackles and fight back their oppressors. 

I see your point. It would be great concept to have a "civil war" to overthrow the government. 

Personally, I think the varying methods to "overthrow" the people in power or determine who takes charge next is good enough. Having the most wealth for economic nodes, the strongest fighter for militaristic, etc. I don't remember exactly what they were, but I think it's creative.

Yes, the node government and mayor is chosen by different mechanics:

• Divine node governments are chosen from citizens via service oriented quests that prove faith and dedication to the node.
• Economic node governments are able to be bought and sold by citizens with the most money.
• Military node governments are chosen from citizens through last man standing combat.
• Scientific node governments are elected democratically.

Source: https://youtu.be/44HChA1Kkfk?t=343

ArchivedUser

I dont know why, but I just cant get past wanting to keep node business internal other than sieges. Anything else feels like it would undermine the game design.

I like the idea of tracking the success or failures of caravans though.

ArchivedUser

My idea would be that after a successful siege, the government of the node should be wiped out and the winning side has the option to replace them with anyone they see fit (members of their alliance). This gives them the option to run the government in a fair manner, and the citizens may accept the new leadership. Or they could raise the taxes, bleed the node dry and face a new uprising from the surrounding ZOI. 

ArchivedUser

Hoax said:

My idea would be that after a successful siege, the government of the node should be wiped out and the winning side has the option to replace them with anyone they see fit (members of their alliance). This gives them the option to run the government in a fair manner, and the citizens may accept the new leadership. Or they could raise the taxes, bleed the node dry and face a new uprising from the surrounding ZOI. 

Simple and easy, I like it. 

ArchivedUser

Or...there can be war just for the sheer hell of it.  I'd be ok with that.

ArchivedUser

Dragonpriest said:

Or...there can be war just for the sheer hell of it.  I'd be ok with that.

Nothing wrong with that. Though the more options the better in my opinion. 

@Hoax
That would probably be an easier approach. 

@Rune_Relic
That's fair, maybe even a CD on how long the puppet city would be owned (one election cycle 30days).